Discussion in 'Politics' started by Avatar4321, Dec 14, 2007.
I found this rather amusing.
Now, if only Fred could get some traction he'd be in business.
Oh, how silly. Here come the petty jibes, crocodile tears, and mud slinging. It will probably be more entertaining that watching pro-wrestling.
is telling the truth really mud slinging? I always thought mudslinging was lying about others.
As I understand it, mud slinging does not necessarily have to consist of lies. I define mud slinging to include negative campaigning giving information about an opponents history in a negative light. I would like to see someone campaign by never commenting on an opponents history. It would be great if a candidate would simply talk about his own ideas. If people are curious about the campaigners opponents record, then it should not be difficult to find out such information and the reasons for why the opponent voted as he did. I find it more informative to get information directly from the horses mouth not from some other persons negative spin.
Well, Fred is my #1 choice, and has been even before he officially got in the race. This tactic is pretty smart and doesn't make him look foolish like Hillary does.
Pretty smart if one asks me!
Following this reasoning, you have the fine makings of an ignorant, ill-informed voter....
I don't say that be disrespectful, but thats what it amounts to....
If someone runs on cutting taxes, I want to know what his record is, and I don't mind his opposition pointing out the truth.
If he/she runs on civil rights, I want the opposition to point out if the candidate is really anti-civil rights.
I see nothing at all wrong with negative campaigning, as long as its FACT....
I want all the help I can get to be made aware of all of their ideas and to compare their records with what any of them say now....
And if ones lies about the others records, even that certainly tells me quite a bit...
Petty crap about Obama's first grade goals, or Rudys love life, or the ages of Thomson's or Kucinich's wives is akin to mud-slinging and irrelevant to being president....and tells me more about the clown that brings that shit up than it does about the other candidates.....and I WANT to know those that stoop that low as to mention those things....
I disagree. One can be an informed voter without relying on what one candidate says about another candidate that you are interested in. If I want to know how candidate B voted on different issues and why he voted the way that he did, I would visit his website. I would call or write emails if I want more answers. I might turn to a relatively unbiased resource or web site if I were afraid that his team would lie to me. I would not count on his opponent to give me the absolute, clear, and unvarnished truth.
Suppose that an opponent said, Bush Sr. lied when he said No new taxes. Thats all that you need to know. Dont vote for him if you dont want new taxes. I would have several questions. Did he really lie? Under what circumstances did he give us new taxes? What about the good qualities about Bush Sr. that might overshadow this tax incident?
Oh well. At least negative campaigning is better than telling lies. I guess that we just put different degrees of importance on different strategies. I just contend that it is in poor taste to go negative and think that it would be great to see an all-positive campaign.
Nah, mudslinging is just negative attack ads, as I see it, whether true or not.
The question is, can anyone name the candidate right now who ISN'T slinging mud?
Separate names with a comma.